I have the impression that you're combining the difference between precise doctrine and gray area.
I was merely disputing the notion that the Articles of Faith represent some bedrock core of beliefs among church members that doesn't vary and demonstrating my point using some selected articles and differences of opinion.
The above example isn't a very good argument for high variability within the LDS church. The 3 referenced people all allude to issues studied by textual critics. Deliberate insertions could be translation and/or transmission errors. Some translators "clarified" a passage by inserting a word that favored their interpretation. Some transmitters deliberately omitted or added to passages. You're nitpicking if you think this is varying interpretation.
It matters a great deal because a key issue is what segments of the Bible are "fair game" and which ones are in doubt. If the issue is translation or transmission error that that means the actual text is unreliable. If the issue is merely deletions then everything that's left is kosher but there is additional supplemental materials (including but not limited to the possible inclusion of apocrypha). If the issue is additions then the problem then there is no supplemental material allowed per se and the issue is figuring out which parts to excise. Those are significant differences in how to treat inconsistent or questionable text in a core book of the religion and we get differing statements on the issue between prophets and apostles over time. That's not a nitpick, that's a major difference and the differences occur at a high level of the church leadership.
Is it variable interpretation or incorrect interpretation that needs to be fixed?
That's for you all to work out. My point was merely that interpretation of that article of faith varies.
As far as I know, there isn't much LDS cannon on end-o-days. I'd put that in the "gray area" column. Religions come and gone have speculated heavily here. Rapture and its tribulation variants, preterism with it's variants and opponents, dispensationalism, etc.
Would disagree with the statement that there's a fair amount of "lay doctrine" surrounding the end of days? Particularly as applied to the practice and interpretation of patriarchial blessings in many stakes and wards?
LDS instruction comes from manuals. I'd expect much variability in a religion that expects personal study. The basic manual information is the same, but the individual outcome is going to vary based highly on individual effort, and compounded by personal biases (call it the Bircher effect--those people know everything from the start).
Here we agree. I suspect we'd simply disagree as to the extent that the church varies through differences in emphasis and departures from materials (which happens) from region to region.